Video is about 10 minutes long; listen to it while you post on Tdub. Right now its on the front page.

http://www.cnn.com

[Edited on December 5, 2005 at 6:49 PM. Reason : omar pwnt me]

12/5/2005 6:46:51 PM

there is no way you actually posted that link and thought it was a good idea

12/5/2005 6:47:42 PM

you have to pay to watch the video

12/5/2005 6:48:47 PM

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/tech/2005/12/05/phillips.wikipedia.interview.cnn

no, you dont have to pay.

12/5/2005 6:53:51 PM

^ no CNN has free video now. Where have you been over the last couple of months?

12/5/2005 6:54:02 PM

where i have been was at the screen that says it was $.99 when i clicked on the video just a second ago

12/5/2005 6:57:55 PM

free here

12/5/2005 6:59:49 PM

wikipedia deserves attack

its horrible. if i were a professor and one of my students cited wikipedia, not only would i fail his assignment, i'd tell him i was failing him in the class. he doesn't belong in college.

12/5/2005 7:07:20 PM

What's the point of attacking it?

If you use the site, you know that anyone can write for it.

If you don't know that, you shouldn't be using it.

12/5/2005 7:08:05 PM

Wikipedia is a great resource. Should you cite it in a paper? No.

Take it for what it is.

12/5/2005 7:13:34 PM

how lame would you have to be not to use available resources? lisa simpson would totally use it

12/5/2005 7:13:58 PM

Anyway

I just finished watching the clip

and I want my 10 minutes back.

12/5/2005 7:14:14 PM

i agree it's a good source but shouldn't be treated as absolute fact - people that don't realize this are fucking idiots and make a big scene

12/5/2005 7:16:43 PM

useful for background information only.

citation in a scholarly paper is asking for trouble.

12/5/2005 7:17:54 PM

you shouldn't be citing ANY encyclopedia in a scholarly paper though, let alone that one.
wikipedia isn't the definitive source for anything, but it is a good resource for a many non-academic subjects and a stepping stone for actual research. (many of the articles have cites where someone writing a paper could then look for "reliable" information)

12/5/2005 7:48:54 PM

that old dude is like "OMF SOMEONE POSTED SOMETHING MEAN ABOUT ME ON THE INTARNETS!"

12/5/2005 7:50:41 PM

can't teach old dogs new tricks

12/5/2005 8:22:23 PM

No joke.

I saw on whatever national news program they have on ABC that they cited the wikipedia as a source of some of their statistic data. Some demographic crap.

12/5/2005 8:35:02 PM

People who site most things on the internet are really dumb.

Works Sited:


Wolf Web, The. "Wikipedia accacked by CNN". <http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=370193>,


or how ever you site shit.

12/5/2005 8:40:52 PM

cite, bitch, C-FUCKIN-I-T-E.

[Edited on December 5, 2005 at 8:52 PM. Reason : ]

12/5/2005 8:52:08 PM

omf plajarizm

[Edited on December 5, 2005 at 8:52 PM. Reason : playa-jism]

12/5/2005 8:52:17 PM

I use Wikipedia a lot










































to look up bar trivia

12/5/2005 9:16:34 PM

Quote :

"People who site most things on the internet are really dumb. "

speaking of dumb

12/5/2005 10:41:51 PM

yeah, for some reason that misspelling was almost painful to look at. why is that?

[Edited on December 6, 2005 at 12:18 AM. Reason : ]

12/5/2005 11:53:36 PM

misspelling

12/6/2005 12:00:27 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051206/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_rules;_ylt=AmSCqpDK1x5nbfScNMbOlbKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

12/6/2005 12:23:37 AM

^

Quote :

""The marketplace of ideas ultimately will take care of the problem," Seigenthaler said. "In the meantime, what happens to people like me?""

They stop killing kennedy's, that's what.

[Edited on December 6, 2005 at 12:25 AM. Reason : ]

12/6/2005 12:24:41 AM

the shit on wikipedia is more accurate then the solutions to problems my teachers hand out. we got larger issues here on academia fraud

12/6/2005 12:33:27 AM

you better take care spreading your libel. you know who you are.

12/6/2005 2:46:49 AM

^^agreed. wikipedia may be a free-for-all, but it is certainly an improvement over the rest of the internet.

12/6/2005 5:37:06 AM

Opinions/rants for thought:

-Wikipedia is run completely off of donationed money and donated time. The dude slipped it in at the end as a side note. I would love to see a major news outlet critize ANY other well-known volunteer non-profit organization, and see how well it does for them.

-CNN has really gone downhill over the past 10 years. Items like this remind me never to watch CNN, only to occassionally read articles off of their website. Gotta love neither the reporter nor the guest took the 5 minutes to read the about or donations page on the website. Nobody should be subject to getting humiliated and slaughtered on national television like that ... not without being offered a fighting chance.

-Remind me to get a publicist/spokesperson if I ever get famous.

12/6/2005 5:55:11 AM

Well at least wikipedia is getting lots of free advertisement from this.

12/6/2005 7:26:05 AM

to me, it boils down to:
proprietary Vs. open source
...
favorite Vs. underdog

I think this fight will ensue in many industries.

CNN, Microsoft, etc: Open up, or be left behind.

along the same lines: http://blog.outer-court.com/videos/epic-2015.html
(this thing gave me goosebumps the first time I watched it)

[Edited on December 6, 2005 at 9:15 AM. Reason : ]

12/6/2005 9:13:29 AM

i know a kid who went into wikipedia, and completly turned the article about Sigma Chi into a flame saying it was a gay orgainization

12/6/2005 9:36:02 AM

Wikipedia is a glorified message board.

The emo kids and linux zelots of the blogosphere give it far more credit than its due.

12/6/2005 10:12:54 AM

meh, it does have some suprisingly good articles in there... but most of them are stolen/reprinted from other resources... like hypherphysics and mathworld...

12/6/2005 11:08:55 AM

^^ agreed. i take everything i read on wikipedia with a heaping grain of salt.

go to the library when you are writing a paper

12/6/2005 9:18:56 PM

I use wikipedia when i need to know cursory information that may or may not be right about someone I can't remember the specifics on (authors, conceptual ideas, etc.). Obviously, I don't take what wikipedia has to say as gospel.

Citing wikipedia in a university-level humanities paper deserves a caution from the teacher to the student in respect to authentic academic sources, and then points off if abuse continues. I may include it in a works consulted page, but definitely not in references, depending on the assignment, class, and professor.

As far as public school teaching goes (middle grades, high school), I permit my students to use it as a departure point for finding out more information on a given source, but caution students to bear in mind that the information presented on wikipedia is not necessarily historic fact. So the online resource tends to be more of a "search string" brainstorming activity for further online research, instead of a genuine academic source for reference.

It seems the CNN expose tried to be more focused on libel, but that's the problem with the way the internet is now, there's no absolute responsibility assumed on the part of authors for information found on it. What would suck is if that old journalist started to lobby (or sue) for federal regulation of information found on the net.

12/6/2005 9:51:04 PM

Quote :

"CNN, Microsoft, etc: Open up, or be left behind."

more like "open up, or be profitable closed, but ensure that, in everything you do, it had better be better than anything those unorganized adolescent hacks out there throw together"

12/6/2005 10:56:48 PM

yeah because the leading developers of linux and openoffice are unorganized hacks...

There's some brilliant people working at places like redhat... some of whom are quite old and worked at places like microsoft and IBM long before working on linux. Open doesn't mean done by random jerkoffs on the internet.

Certainly, microsoft and oponents of open-source movements would love people to blindly accept the stereotype of the open-source coder being some 17 year old communist working out of his parent's den... but that's just retarded.

Quote :

"to me, it boils down to: proprietary Vs. open source"

Like he said, it's not wikipedia vs encarta/britannica/cnn, it's proprietary vs open source...

Wikipedia does not epitomize open-source. It does exemplify one of the ideals of ease of contribution, but things like mozilla/firefox, openoffice, and linux are much better examples of what the open source community produces and is capable of.


[Edited on December 6, 2005 at 11:34 PM. Reason : ]

12/6/2005 11:26:36 PM

wikipedia has its uses, as much as any other site on the internet

but oh the irony, journalists dont like it when other people write about them, maybe they should take a hint

12/7/2005 1:16:04 AM

using wiki for research papers is dumb because of the questionable ease of editing it (you can get around this by finding other sources to back up what you find on wiki, look at their sources listed, etc), but it does have its uses.

12/7/2005 3:59:17 AM

if you want to compare wikipedia to open source, it would be open source with no source control.

12/7/2005 8:23:58 AM

"that's not how I want people to see me or think of me"

12/7/2005 8:41:13 AM

A lot of the articles are really good, especially for more arcane topics. If you're looking for basic information on a subject, it's an excellent starting point.

Someone also needs to realize that if a dumbshit isn't able to differentiate between legitimate, supported information and libel or anything that's blatantly false, well, they're not worth educating. And guess what? If you're that angry, you can edit it to your own liking, so stop bitching and change it.

12/8/2005 10:39:56 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051212/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_fake_bio;_ylt=AteOR5MPFxf4o9XHJdI4qFis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

Apparently it was a joke?

12/12/2005 4:36:12 PM

Quote :

"founding editorial director of USA Today"

I've been wondering who this guy is all along ... was it a household name to anybody else?

12/12/2005 6:13:51 PM

Appearently wikipedia is generally about as accurate as the encyclopedia britannica...


http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html

12/15/2005 11:55:24 AM